CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES REVIEW BOARD
C.B. v. Durham Children’s Aid Society
REASONS FOR DECISION ON JURISDICTION AND MERITS
Date: August 27, 2008 Citation: 2008 CFSRB 82 Indexed as: C.B. v. Durham CAS (CFSA s.68)
INTRODUCTION
1On March 12, 2008, C.B. (the “Applicant”) filed an application with the Child and Family Services Review Board (the “Board”) against the Durham Children’s Aid Society (the “Society”) pursuant to sections 68 and 68.1 of the Child and Family Services Act R.S.O. 1990, c. C.11 (the “Act”). The application was deemed eligible for review on April 7, 2008.
2The Applicant complained in the application that the Society had failed to provide her with reasons for a decision that affected her interests and that there were inaccuracies in her file or record with the Society. At a pre-hearing conference held on April 28, 2008, the Applicant alleged that the Society discriminated against her and undermined her parenting rights.
3The Board scheduled a hearing for June 3, 2008 in [ ], Ontario, the city where the Applicant is currently residing. One week prior to that date, the Applicant successfully requested a postponement. The Board re-scheduled the hearing for August 6, 2008 in [ ], Ontario. On July 28, 2008, the Board received a request from the Applicant for a further postponement. This request was denied. The Board conducted the scheduled hearing on August 6, 2008 and proceeded, after an attempt to contact the Applicant, in her absence. The Society, in a preliminary motion, argued that the Board did not have jurisdiction to hear any of the Applicant’s complaints. The Society re-affirmed its written offer to accept a letter of disagreement from the Applicant to be placed in her file on a without prejudice basis.
BACKGROUND
4The Applicant and her children received services from the Society on an intermittent basis from November, 1999 until January, 2007 at which time the Applicant changed residence from the Durham Region to the Region of [ ]. A Case Activity Summary was entered in evidence detailing many of the services sought and provided to the Applicant and her children over the course of many years.
5The Applicant provided information in her application that she was an abused child, had relationships with abusive partners, and has had child protection involvement with the Society. The Applicant feels victimized by this history that, in her mind, has led to negative social profiling impacting her employability with a children’s aid society.
6The Applicant also alleges that her relationship with her children is strained as a result of the Society having undermined her parenting rights. She claims that the Society made unscheduled visits to her home and conducted secret interviews with her children during a time period when child protection was a concern being investigated by the Society.
7The Applicant alleges that her career opportunities have been impeded by discriminatory acts of the Society. The Applicant is currently working on a Masters degree in Social Work and has been unable to procure either practicum placements or employment in the many children’s aid societies she has contacted. She alleges that her inquiries go unanswered. The Applicant’s name and other limited information appears on the Provincial database known as the Child Protection Fast Track Information System (“Fast Track”), a database maintained by the Ontario Ministry of Children and Youth Services, and the Applicant sees this child protection record as specifically being the cause of career difficulties. The Applicant blames the Society for the ongoing presence of her name in Fast Track.
RELEVANT LEGISLATION
8The Board has considered the following legislative provisions in arriving at a decision:
68(5). Application for review by Board
If a complaint relates to one of the following matters, the complainant may apply to the Board in accordance with the regulations for a review of the decision made by the society upon completion of the complaint review procedure:
(1) An alleged inaccuracy in the society’s files or records regarding the complainant.
68.1(4). Matters for Board review
The following matters may be reviewed by the Board under this section:
(1) Allegations that the society has refused to proceed with a complaint made by a complainant under subsection 68(1).
(4) Allegations that the society failed to comply with clause 2(2)(a).
(5) Allegations that the society has failed to provide the complainant with reasons for a decision that affects the complainant’s interests.
2(2). Duties of Service Providers
Service providers shall ensure,
(a) that children and their parents have an opportunity where appropriate to be heard and represented when decisions affecting their interests are made and to be heard when they have concerns about the services they are receiving.
ANALYSIS
9The Applicant raised four issues in the application and pre-hearing conference as follows:
Issue #1: The Society had inaccurately recorded something in her file or record.
10The Society argued that this complaint is ineligible as the Applicant had not engaged the Society’s Internal Complaint Review Procedure to review the complaint prior to making a complaint to the Board. Section 68(5) of the Act only permits a review of this nature by the Board upon completion of the Internal Complaint Review Procedure. Furthermore, the Society stated that it had no knowledge of what the alleged inaccuracy might entail since the Applicant has provided no particulars.
11The Board finds that, pursuant to section 68(5) of the Act, it has no jurisdiction to hear this complaint. The Applicant must bring this complaint to the Society’s Internal Complaint Review Panel before coming to the Board for a review.
Issue 2: The Society failed to provide reasons for a decision that affected her interests.
12The Society submitted that it did not know what decision was being referred to in this complaint since the Applicant provided no particulars. The Society speculated that it might be that the Applicant felt that the Society had placed her name and other information in Fast Track. The Society led evidence that it has no control over the presence of information in Fast Track. Once any society opens a protection file, the name and other limited information is automatically extracted by Fast Track so that, should any other society receive a referral or contact involving the same individual or family, it is alerted and may request details from the society where the information originated.
13Subsection 68(1) of the Act allows a person to make a complaint to a society if the complaint relates to a service sought or received by that person from that society. Furthermore, subsection 68.1(4)(1) of the Act permits the Board to review a matter when the society has refused to proceed with a complaint under subsection 68(1). The Board finds that the complaint in issue #2 does not relate to a service provided by the Society. The service provided by the Society was a child protection investigation. The Society had nothing to do with putting the Applicant’s name in Fast Track. That service was provided by a government Ministry. Thus, the Board finds that it does not have jurisdiction to hear this complaint.
Issue #3: The Society discriminated against her and this discrimination has negatively affected her employment and educational opportunities.
14The Society submitted that the Applicant never applied to the Durham Children’s Aid Society for a placement or employment. Furthermore, the Applicant did not provide any evidence that her calls were not returned by this Society because her name was in Fast Track or otherwise. The Society tendered evidence that it is illegal for any children’s aid society to research a name in Fast Track for employment purposes. Use of Fast Track is monitored so that any system user and the name being researched can be readily identified to prevent improper use of the system. The Society’s position is that there can be no finding of discrimination against the Applicant based on the presence of her name in Fast Track. The Society submits that it has no control over any name that appears in Fast Track and that once a name is on the Fast Track system, the Society has no mechanism to remove the name and related information.
15Among other matters, section 3 of the Act defines the services that can be provided by a society. Employment and educational opportunities are not included. Complaints under section 68 or 68.1 of the Act must relate to the services as defined in section 3. Thus, the Board concludes that it does not have jurisdiction to hear this complaint.
Issue #4: The Society undermined the Applicant’s parenting rights.
16This complaint arose during the pre-hearing conference of April 28, 2008. The Applicant had provided no specific details about this issue in her application, nor did she provide any particulars or documentary evidence to support this claim at any time after the pre-hearing conference.
17The Society stated that it has received no complaints from the Applicant about this issue at any time since their first involvement with the Applicant’s family in November, 1999.
18The Board finds that there are no facts or details to support the Applicant’s claim that the Society undermined her parenting rights. In the absence of further facts or explanation from the Applicant, the Board concludes that there is no factual basis upon which to proceed with this complaint. The Society cannot be required to respond to a broad complaint of the undermining of parental rights with no supporting factual evidence by the Applicant bringing the complaint within the parameters of section 68.1(4).
DECISION
19Based upon the foregoing analysis, the Board finds that it does not have jurisdiction to hear the complaints described in issues #1, #2 and #3. For issue #1, a complaint regarding alleged inaccuracies in the Society’s files must be first heard by the Society’s Internal Complaint Review Panel. For issue #2, Fast Track is not a service sought or received by the Applicant from the Society. For issue #3, employment and educational opportunities are not services provided to the Applicant by the Society.
20In the absence of any factual basis or explanations from the Applicant vis-à-vis the undermining of her parenting rights by the Society, the Board dismisses the complaint delineated as issue #4.
Gregory Price Presiding Member
Deborah Simon Panel Member
John Gates Panel Member
Dated at Toronto, Ontario on this 27th day of August, 2008.